Synoptic(true) Gospels

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic = true, Gospels because
they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar wording. These
works are recorded by eye-witnesses who saw the events and thus had very similar accounts. The
true synoptic gospels profess Jesus as a teacher and ‘A’ way to heaven.
Mark is written approximately 40 years after Jesus’s death. Matthew and Luke some 20 years later.
And the similarities and the timelines show an eyewitness accounting.
They stand in contrast to John, whose content is comparatively distinct. John is obviously and
historically written by someone who was not there. Jesus cuts off the ear of a Roman in John. There
are massive miracles not accounted for in other gospels. And in John we see Jesus presented as a
God and as “THE’ way to heaven.
There was no law or even conception of plagiarism or copyright, and it was the fashion to use the
name of another person you liked as the author as a way to show tribute to the other person. There
are hundreds of people using Solomon’s name as a tribute to books.
John was written 100 years after Jesus’s death and clearly not an eyewitness account. John the
author of John, was not the apostle john but was a different person pretending to be John as a
tribute. So historians said that Mark, Matthew and Luke were the true synoptic gospels.
It is clear that John, Acts, Revelations were all written to help Constantine promote the Christian
religion. And as Constantine said “I am an Emperor, I cannot pray to a Man, I can pray to a GOD”.
Constantine also wanted to have Christianity more male to counter the goddess religion in Rome. So
the works of Mary Magdalene and her relationship to Jesus had to be covered up. Reducing the
teachings of Jesus and sensationalizing the story of his God abilities was used to promote
Christianity as a religion, but this watered down the social impact of the teachings.
In the original Mark there is no account of Jesus’s immaculate conception, and also no account of
his rising on Easter Sunday. Interesting concepts to not write about, unless they did not happen as
John portrays them. In original Matthew he writes that on Easter Jesus appears only to Mary
Magdalene and Mary mother of James. They account of it as if a spirit was there. Luke then tells that
later Jesus walked with the apostles, but they could not recognize Jesus. Luke tells a story of a
gradual almost group hypnotic recognition that it is Jesus. Only in made up JOHN do we see more.
The church has added and modified the ends of these Gospels to fit their idea of the ending.
The term synoptic (Latin: synopticus; Ancient Greek: συνοπτικός synoptikos) comes via Latin from
the Greek σύνοψις synopsis, i.e. "(a) seeing all together, synopsis";[n 1] the sense of the word in
English, the one specifically applied to these three Gospels, of "giving an account of the events from
the same point of view or under the same general aspect" is a modern one.[1]

The calming of the storm is similarly recounted in each of the three synoptic gospels, but not in John.

This strong parallelism among the three gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is
widely attributed to literary interdependence.[2] The question of the precise nature of their literary
relationship—the "synoptic problem"—has been a topic of lively debate for centuries and has been
described as "the most fascinating literary enigma of all time".[3] The longstanding majority view
favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark
as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical
document, called Q.[4]
Structure

Almost all of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and much of Mark is similarly found in Luke. Additionally,
Matthew and Luke have a large amount of material in common that is not found in Mark.

Common features
Broadly speaking, the synoptic gospels are similar to John: all are composed in Koine Greek, have a
similar length, and were completed within a century of Jesus' death. And they differ from non-
canonical sources, such as the Gospel of Thomas, in that they belong to the ancient genre of
biography,[5][6]collecting not only Jesus' teachings, but recounting in an orderly way his origins, his
ministry and miracles, and his passion and resurrection.
In content and in wording, though, the synoptics diverge widely from John but have a great deal in
common with each other. Though each gospel includes some unique material, the majority of Mark
and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly
verbatim. This common material is termed the triple tradition.
The triple tradition
The triple tradition, the material included by all three synoptic gospels, includes many stories and
teachings:

 John the Baptist

 Baptism and temptation of Jesus
 First disciples of Jesus
 Hometown rejection of Jesus
 Healing of Peter's mother-in-law, demoniacs, aleper, and a paralytic
 Call of the tax collector
 New Wine into Old Wineskins
 Man with withered Hand
 Commissioning the twelve Apostles
 The Beelzebul controversy
 Teachings on the parable of the strong man,eternal sin, His true relatives, the parable of the
sower, the lamp under a bushel, and theparable of the mustard seed
 Calming the storm
 The Gerasene demoniac
 The daughter of Jairus and the bleeding woman
 Feeding the 5000
 Confession of Peter
 Transfiguration
 The demoniac boy
 The little children
 The rich young man
 Jesus predicts his death
 Blind near Jericho
 Palm Sunday
 Casting out the money changers
 Render unto Caesar
 Woes of the Pharisees
 Second Coming Prophecy
 The Last Supper, passion, crucifixion, and entombment
 The empty tomb and resurrected Jesus
 Great Commission
Furthermore, the triple tradition's pericopae (passages) tend to be arranged in much the same order
in all three gospels. This stands in contrast to the material found in only two of the gospels, which is
much more variable in order.[7][8]
The classification of text as belonging to the triple tradition (or for that matter, double tradition) is not
always definitive, depending rather on the degree of similarity demanded. For example, Matthew and
Mark report the cursing of the fig tree[Mt 21:18–22][Mk 11:12–24], clearly a single incident, despite some
substantial differences of wording and content. Searching Luke, however, we find only the parable of
the barren fig tree[Lk 13:6–9], in a different point of the narrative. Some would say that Luke has
extensively adapted an element of the triple tradition, while others would regard it as a distinct
pericope.
Example

Christ cleansing a leper by Jean-Marie Melchior Doze, 1864.

An illustrative example of the three texts in parallel is the healing of the leper:[9]

Mt 8:2–3 Mk 1:40–42 Lk 5:12–13

Καὶ ἰδοὺ, Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν Καὶ ἰδοὺ,

λεπρὸς λεπρὸς ἀνὴρ πλήρης λέπρας·
προσελθὼν παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν ἰδὼν δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν
προσεκύνει καὶ γονυπετῶν πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον
αὐτῷ λέγων· καὶ λέγων αὐτῷ ὅτι, ἐδεήθη αὐτοῦ λέγων·
Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς Ἐὰν θέλῃς Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς
δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι.
καὶ καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς καὶ
ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα
ἥψατο αὐτοῦ αὐτοῦ ἥψατο ἥψατο αὐτοῦ
λέγων· καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· λέγων·
Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι·
καὶ εὐθέως καὶ εὐθὺς καὶ εὐθέως
ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾿
ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾿
αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα. καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη. αὐτοῦ.

And behold, And, calling out to him, And behold,

a leper came there comes to him a leper a man full of leprosy.
But, upon seeing Jesus,
and worships and kneeling and he fell upon his face
and requested
him, saying: saying to him: him, saying:
 Lord, if you wish, If you wish, Lord, if you wish,
I can be cleansed. I can be cleansed. I can be cleansed.
And, moved with compassion,
And he stretched out his he stretched out his And he stretched out his
hand and touched him, hand and touched him hand and touched him,
saying: and says to him: saying:
I wish it; be cleansed. I wish it; be cleansed. I wish it; be cleansed.
And immediately And immediately And immediately
his leprosy the leprosy the leprosy
left him, left him.
was cleansed. and he was cleansed.

More than half the wording in this passage is identical. Just as interesting, though, is that each
gospel includes words absent in the other two and omits something included by the other two.
Relation to Mark
It has been observed that the triple tradition itself constitutes a complete gospel quite similar to the
shortest gospel, Mark.[7]
Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, adds relatively little to the triple tradition. Pericopae unique to Mark
are scarce, notably two healings involving saliva[Mk 7:33–36;8:22–26]and the naked runaway[Mk 14:51–52].
Mark's additions within the triple tradition tend to be explanatory elaborations (e.g., "the stone was
rolled back, for it was very large"[Mk 16:4]) or Aramaisms (e.g., "Talitha kum!"[Mk 5:41]). The pericopae Mark
shares with only Luke are also quite few: the Capernaum exorcism[Mk 1:23–28][Lk 4:33–37] and departure from
Capernaum[Mk 1:35–38][Lk 4:42–43], the strange exorcist[Mk 9:38–41][Lk 9:49–50], and the widow's mites[Mk 12:41–44][Lk 21:1–4]. A
greater number, but still not many, are shared with only Matthew, most notably the so-called "Great
Omission"[10] from Luke of Mk 6:45–8:26.
Most scholars take these observations as a strong clue to the literary relationship among the
synoptics and Mark's special place in that relationship.[11] The hypothesis favored by most experts
is Marcan priority, that Mark was composed first and that Matthew and Luke each used Mark and
incorporated most of it, with adaptations, into their own gospels. A leading alternative hypothesis
is Marcan posteriority, that Mark was formed primarily by extracting what Matthew and Luke shared
in common.[12]
The double tradition

The preaching of John the Baptist in Matthew and Luke, with differences rendered in black.[13] Here the two
texts agree verbatim, with an isolated exception, for a span of over sixty words. Mark has no parallel.

An extensive set of material—some two hundred verses or roughly half the length of the triple
tradition—are the pericopae shared between Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. This is termed
the double tradition.[14]Parables and other sayings predominate in the double tradition, but it also
includes narrative elements:[15]

 Preaching of John the Baptist

 Temptation of Jesus (which Mark summarizes in two verses)
 The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) or Plain(Luke)
 The Centurion's servant
 Messengers from John the Baptist
 Woes to the unrepentant cities
 Jesus thanks His Father
 Return of the unclean spirit
 Parables of the leaven, the lost sheep, the great banquet, the talents, and the faithful servant
 Discourse against the scribes and Pharisees
 Lament over Jerusalem
Unlike triple-tradition material, double-tradition material is very differently arranged in the two
gospels. Matthew's lengthy Sermon on the Mount, for example, is paralleled by Luke's
shorter Sermon on the Plain, with the remainder of its content scattered throughout Luke. This is
consistent with the general pattern of Matthew collecting sayings into large blocks, while Luke does
the opposite and intersperses them with narrative.[16]
Besides the double-tradition proper, Matthew and Luke often agree against Mark within the triple
tradition to varying extents, sometimes including several additional verses, sometimes differing by a
single word. These are termed the major and minor agreements (the distinction is imprecise[17][18]).
One example is in the passion narrative, where Mark has simply, "Prophesy!"[Mk 14:65] while Matthew
and Luke both add, "Who is it that struck you?"[Mt 26:68][Lk 22:64][19]
The double-tradition's origin, with its major and minor agreements, is a key facet of the synoptic
problem. The simplest hypothesis is that Luke relied on Matthew's work or vice versa. But many
experts, on various grounds, maintain that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other's work. If this is
the case, they must have drawn from some common source, distinct from Mark, that provided the
double-tradition material and overlapped with Mark's content where major agreements occur. This
hypothetical document is termed Q, for the German Quelle, meaning "source".[20]
Special Matthew and Special Luke
Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material found in no other gospel. These materials are
sometimes called Special Matthew or M and Special Luke or L.
Both Special Matthew and Special Luke include distinct opening infancy narratives and distinct post-
resurrection conclusions (with Luke continuing the story in his second book Acts). In between,
Special Matthew includes mostly parables, while Special Luke includes both parables and healings.
Special Luke is notable for containing a greater concentration of Semitisms than any other gospel
material.[21]
Luke gives some indication of how he composed his gospel in his prologue:[22][23]
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been
fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully
from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you
may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.[Lk 1:1–4 (NRSV)]

The synoptic problem

The "synoptic problem" is the question of the specific literary relationship among the three
synoptic gospels–that is, the question as to the source upon which gospel depended when it
was written.
The texts of the three synoptic gospels often agree very closely in wording and order, both in
quotations and in narration. Most scholars ascribe this to documentary dependence, direct or
indirect, meaning the close agreements among synoptic gospels are due to one gospel's
drawing from the text of another, or from some written source that gospel also drew from.[citation
needed]

Controversies
The synoptic problem hinges on several interrelated points of controversy:

 Priority: Which gospel was written first? (Clearly, where one text draws from another, the
source must have been composed first.)
 Successive dependence: Did each of the synoptic gospels draw from each of its
predecessors? (If not, clearly the frequent agreements between the two independent
gospels against the third must originate elsewhere.)
 Lost written sources: Did any of the gospels draw from some earlier document that has not
been preserved (e.g., the hypothetical "Q", or an earlier edition of another gospel)?
 Oral sources: To what extent did each evangelist draw from personal knowledge,
eyewitness accounts, liturgy, or other oral traditions to produce an original written account?
 Translation: Jesus and others quoted in the gospels spoke primarily in Aramaic, but the
gospels themselves are each written in Greek. Who performed the translation, and at what
point?
 Redaction: How and why did those who put the gospels in their final form expand, abridge,
alter, or rearrange their sources?
Furthermore, some theories try to explain the relation of the synoptic gospels to John; to non-
canonical gospels such as Thomas, Peter, and Egerton; to the Didache; and to lost documents
such as the Hebrew logia mentioned by Papias, the Jewish–Christian gospels, and the Gospel
of Marcion.
History

A page of Griesbach's Synopsis Evangeliorum, in which the texts of the synoptic gospels are arranged
in columns.

Ancient sources are virtually unanimous in ascribing the synoptic gospels to, respectively, the
apostle Matthew, Peter's interpreter Mark, and Paul's companion Luke, hence their canonical
names.[24] A remark by Augustine at the turn of the fifth century presents the gospels as
composed in their canonical order (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), with each evangelist
thoughtfully building upon and supplementing the work of his predecessors—the Augustinian
hypothesis (Matthew–Mark).[25]
This view (when any model of dependence was considered at all) was seldom questioned until
the late eighteenth century, when Johann Jakob Griesbach published a synopsis of the gospels.
Instead of harmonizing them, he displayed them side by side, making both similarities and
divergences apparent. Griesbach, noticing the special place of Mark in the synopsis,
hypothesized Marcan posteriority and advanced (as Henry Owen had a few years earlier)
the two-gospel hypothesis (Matthew–Luke).
In the nineteenth century, the tools of literary criticism were applied to the synoptic problem in
earnest, especially in German scholarship. Early work revolved around a hypothetical proto-
gospel (Ur-Gospel), possibly in Aramaic, underlying the synoptics. From this line of inquiry,
however, a consensus emerged that Mark itself was the principal source for the other two
gospels—Marcan priority.
In a theory first proposed by Weisse in 1838, the double tradition was explained by Matthew and
Luke independently using two sources—thus, the two-source (Mark-Q) theory—which were
Mark and another hypothetical source consisting mostly of sayings. This additional source was
at first seen as the logia (sayings) spoken of by Papias and thus called "Λ", but later it became
more generally known as "Q", from the German Quelle, meaning source.[26] This two-source
theory eventually won wide acceptance and was seldom questioned until the late twentieth
century; most scholars simply took this new orthodoxy for granted and directed their efforts
toward Q itself, and this is still largely the case.
The theory is also well known in a more elaborate form set forth by Streeter in 1924, which
additionally hypothesized written sources "M" and "L" for Special Matthew and Special Luke,
respectively—hence, the influential four-document hypothesis. This exemplifies the prevailing
scholarship of the time, in which the canonical gospels were seen as late products, from well
into the second century, composed by unsophisticated cut-and-paste redactors out of a
progression of written sources, derived in turn from oral traditions and folklore that had evolved
in various communities.[27] More recently, however, as this view has gradually fallen into disfavor,
so too has the centrality of documentary interdependence and hypothetical documentary
sources as an explanation for all aspects of the synoptic problem.
In recent decades, weaknesses of the two-source theory have been more widely recognized,
and debate has reignited. Many have independently argued that Luke did make some use of
Matthew after all—the three-source hypothesis. British scholars went further and dispensed with
Q entirely, ascribing the double tradition to Luke's direct use of Matthew—the Farrer
hypothesis (Mark–Matthew), now a leading challenger. Meanwhile, the Augustinian hypothesis
has also made a comeback, especially in American scholarship. The Jerusalem school
hypothesis has also attracted fresh advocates, as has the Independence hypothesis, which
denies documentary relationships altogether.
On this collapse of consensus, Wenham observed: "I found myself in the Synoptic Problem
Seminar of the Society for New Testament Studies, whose members were in disagreement over
every aspect of the subject. When this international group disbanded in 1982 they had sadly to
confess that after twelve years' work they had not reached a common mind on a single issue."[28]
Theories
Nearly every conceivable theory has been advanced as a solution to the synoptic
problem.[29] The most notable theories are listed here (for details of each, including variants, see
the respective articles):

Notable synoptic theories

Priority Theory[30] Diagram

Marcan Two-source Most widely accepted theory.

priority (Mark-Q) a Greek
 Farrer
Double tradition
(Mark-Matthew)

Three-source A hybrid of Two-source and F

(Mark-Q/Matthew)

Q+/Papias
Each document drew fro
Hypothesis
(Mark-Q/Matthew)
 Wilke
Double tradition
(Mark-Luke)

Two-gospel
Mark primarily has collec
(Griesbach)
(Matthew-Luke)

Matthaean
priority

The oldest known view, still

Augustinian
Mark's special place is neithe
(Matthew-Mark)
 A Greek anthology (A), tran
Lucan Jerusalem school gospel. Luke also drew from
priority (Luke-Q) Jesus reconciling the antholo

Multi-source Each gospel drew from a d

none

The gospels each independ

Proto-gospel
p
 Independence Each gospel is an indepen

See also
 Aramaic primacy
 Authorship of the Gospels
 Biblical criticism
 Gospel harmony
 List of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels
 Source criticism

Notes and references

Notes

1. Both Greek words, synoptikos and synopsis, derive from σύν syn (prep.), meaning "together,
with", and etymologically related words pertaining to sight, vision, appearance,
i.e.ὀπτικός optikos (adj.; cf. English optic), meaning "of or for sight", and ὄψις opsis (n.), meaning
"appearance, sight, vision, view".[1]
References

1. b "synoptic". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September

2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) Harper, Douglas. "synoptic". Online
Etymology Dictionary. Harper, Douglas. "synopsis".Online Etymology Dictionary. Harper,
Douglas. "optic". Online Etymology
Dictionary. σύν, ὄπτός, ὀπτικός, ὄψις, συνοπτικός, σύνοψις. Liddell, Henry George; Scott,
Robert; A Greek–English Lexicon at the Perseus Project.
2. Goodacre, Mark (2001). The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze.
p. 16. ISBN 0567080560.
3. Goodacre (2001), p. 32.
4. Goodacre (2001), pp. 20–21.
5. Bauckham, Richard (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness
Testimony. p. 220. ISBN 0802831621.
6. Perkins, Pheme (2009). Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp. 2–11.ISBN 0802865534.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b Goodacre (2001), p. 38.
8. Neville, David (2002). Mark's Gospel — Prior Or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon
of Order. ISBN 1841272655.
9. Smith, Ben C. (2009). "The healing of a leper". TextExcavation. Retrieved2013-11-24.
10. Stein, Robert H. (1992). Luke: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture.
pp. 29–30. ISBN 0805401245.
11. Kloppenborg, John S. (2000). Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel.
pp. 20–28. ISBN 1451411553.
12. Goodacre (2001), p. 81.
13. Mt 3:7–10 & Lk 3:7–9. Text from 1894 Scrivener New Testament.
14. Goodacre (2001), pp. 39 ff.
15. Goodacre (2001), pp. 40–41 & 151–152.
16. Goodacre (2001), pp. 124–126.
17. Goodacre (2001), pp. 148–151.
18. Goodacre, Mark (2007-11-14). "Mark-Q Overlaps IV: Back to the Continuum".NT Blog.
Retrieved 2013-11-24.
19. Goodacre (2001), pp. 145–146.
20. Goodacre (2001), p. 108.
21. Edwards, James R. (2009). The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition.
pp. 141–148. ISBN 0802862349.
22. Bauckham (2006), pp. 65–66.
23. Alexander, Loveday (2005). The Preface to Luke's Gospel. ISBN 0521018811.
24. Hengel, Martin (2000). The four Gospels and the one Gospel of Jesus Christ: an investigation of
the collection and origin of the Canonical Gospels. pp. 34–115.ISBN 1563383004.
25. Dungan, David L. (1999). A history of the synoptic problem: the canon, the text, the composition
and the interpretation of the Gospels. pp. 112–144.ISBN 0385471920.
26. Lührmann, Dieter (1995). "Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?". In Piper, Ronald Allen.The Gospel
Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. pp. 97–102.ISBN 9004097376.
27. Goodacre (2001), pp. 160–161.
28. Wenham, John (1992). Redating Matthew, Mark, & Luke. p. xxi.ISBN 0830817603.
29. Carlson (September 2004). "Synpotic Problem". Hypotyposeis.org. Carlson lists over twenty of
the major ones, with citations of the literature.
30. Though eponymous and some haphazard structural names are prevalent in the literature, a
systematic structural nomenclature is advocated by Carlson and Smith, and these names are
also provided.